Forum

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Nikon 16-35 f4 + Nikon D7000  (Read 4869 times)
EPurpl3
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« on: October 25, 2012, 01:29:09 PM »

  Hi, this is my first post on this forum, nice website, too bad i didnt found it sooner Cheesy.

  I have a Nikon D7000 and i recently bought a Nikon 16-35 f4, it seamed the right decision at that moment, i have found some very positive reviews for that lens but after i have bought it i realized that the IQ is not so great on D7000, i also tested it on D700 and is just great. In dxOMark database the D7000 and the D700 have same sensor score, 80, than if the both sensors are as sharp than why is the image quality of the lens so bad when used on a Nikon D7000 and so good on D700? Any idea?

Thanks.
Logged
EPurpl3
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2012, 09:05:24 AM »

Anyone? is the d7000 sensor is good (and is good) and if the 16-35 lens is sharp (and is sharp) than why is the IQ so bad? not all the time, between f5.6 and f8 is acceptable sharp but i want to use this lens especially for landscape photography so i really need ~f12 - f22. Is there any optics expert who can help me?
Logged
Msmoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2012, 01:44:32 PM »

The sensor size on the D700 being an FX camera is about 2.3 times the area of a DX sensor on the D7000.  Tis means it will have that much more ability to record an image and this is why the DxOMArk scores of the 16-35mm f/4 VR nikkor will be seen as 11 on the D7000 and 19 on a D700.  The D7000 image is simply a crop of the D700 and as one knows, cropping looses resolution. 
Logged
bwfredette
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2012, 07:57:27 PM »

The sensor size on the D700 being an FX camera is about 2.3 times the area of a DX sensor on the D7000.  Tis means it will have that much more ability to record an image and this is why the DxOMArk scores of the 16-35mm f/4 VR nikkor will be seen as 11 on the D7000 and 19 on a D700.  The D7000 image is simply a crop of the D700 and as one knows, cropping looses resolution. 

Cropping does not in itself loose quality. It mearly changes the dimention of the recorded area for a given focal length. Being that the central area of the image has less seidel apparition then in fact one is recording a better image per pixel on smaller sensors.  Resolution is determined by the lenses spot size and the sensor pixel size times pixel count.  the two should match  or one is then limitted by the other...  It is a common idea that a bigger sensor is better but just lacking in science. 

If all things were held constant and you scaled up the sensor, then you would capture more sensor data and still have no better image quality, yet being that all things do not scale up evenly one finds it is a marketing choice and secondly a way of dealing with the limmits in cheap lens design.  a bigger sensor can have bigger photon receptors (pixels) for a given resolution and thus pairs up well with a lens that has a bigger spot size. If they added more pixels on a bigger sensor than you have a higher mp cammera so that is why the image is better. the same mp count on a smaller sensor has a potential of forming a better image...

It's as if one is coparing hard drive quality by disk diameter, it would be wrong... It would be easy if a .5 inch sensors had 2k*2k pixels and 1 inch sensors had 4k*4k pixels but it doesn't, 16mp means 16mp. Sensor design then has do do with other factors( processing power, sensor bandwidth, photo electric sensitivity, etc).

Ultimatly if lens quality is your limiting factor than a full frame sensor with larger "dots" is a better choice (at your chosen resolution) for you.  If you are using for example a Lester-Dine or one of pentax's limited lenses, then that  sensor is actualy hurting your resolving power (at any given equal sensor mp count)in exchange for not having to deal with a cropping factor.

One thing that further confounds the situation is manufacturers that flood the market with interpolated resolution gimicks. Proof is in the pudding aand when a new camera is "better" it is likely due to higher processing power, better logic and greater sensor sensitivity and higher pixel count.  Size just tags along as an easy to wrap your brain around  gimick. Just like saying hard drives with 5" platters are better than ones with 3 inch palatters sounds right to a person who has no clue to hard drive design.
Logged
EPurpl3
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2012, 11:25:31 AM »

The sensor size on the D700 being an FX camera is about 2.3 times the area of a DX sensor on the D7000.  Tis means it will have that much more ability to record an image and this is why the DxOMArk scores of the 16-35mm f/4 VR nikkor will be seen as 11 on the D7000 and 19 on a D700.  The D7000 image is simply a crop of the D700 and as one knows, cropping looses resolution. 

Cropping does not in itself loose quality. It mearly changes the dimention of the recorded area for a given focal length. Being that the central area of the image has less seidel apparition then in fact one is recording a better image per pixel on smaller sensors.  Resolution is determined by the lenses spot size and the sensor pixel size times pixel count.  the two should match  or one is then limitted by the other...  It is a common idea that a bigger sensor is better but just lacking in science. 

If all things were held constant and you scaled up the sensor, then you would capture more sensor data and still have no better image quality, yet being that all things do not scale up evenly one finds it is a marketing choice and secondly a way of dealing with the limmits in cheap lens design.  a bigger sensor can have bigger photon receptors (pixels) for a given resolution and thus pairs up well with a lens that has a bigger spot size. If they added more pixels on a bigger sensor than you have a higher mp cammera so that is why the image is better. the same mp count on a smaller sensor has a potential of forming a better image...

It's as if one is coparing hard drive quality by disk diameter, it would be wrong... It would be easy if a .5 inch sensors had 2k*2k pixels and 1 inch sensors had 4k*4k pixels but it doesn't, 16mp means 16mp. Sensor design then has do do with other factors( processing power, sensor bandwidth, photo electric sensitivity, etc).

Ultimatly if lens quality is your limiting factor than a full frame sensor with larger "dots" is a better choice (at your chosen resolution) for you.  If you are using for example a Lester-Dine or one of pentax's limited lenses, then that  sensor is actualy hurting your resolving power (at any given equal sensor mp count)in exchange for not having to deal with a cropping factor.

One thing that further confounds the situation is manufacturers that flood the market with interpolated resolution gimicks. Proof is in the pudding aand when a new camera is "better" it is likely due to higher processing power, better logic and greater sensor sensitivity and higher pixel count.  Size just tags along as an easy to wrap your brain around  gimick. Just like saying hard drives with 5" platters are better than ones with 3 inch palatters sounds right to a person who has no clue to hard drive design.


Wow, thank you, i think i understand and i also totally agree the marketing strategies of some tech manufacturers (for example i dont like how canon adds so many mega pixels on some cameras that are not sharp at all). When i started photography i knew there were a lot of things to learn but day by day i am amazed of the amount of things that exist and has to be learned and i never realized they exist even if they are in front of me (literally) all the time Cheesy. Optics is one of these things.

I might be wrong but here is what i have understood, in a physical point of view, the lens has, lets say, 1 billion glass atoms, a lens with more atoms is sharper than a lens with less atoms. A FX sensor at will use all the atoms but a DX sensor will use (because its crop is 1.5 times smaller than a FX) only 666666666.(6) atoms so it will be less sharper because less atoms means less lens resolution at any F. If i am right than i wish the camera had a option to be able to move the sensor backwards to be able to use the full sharpness of the lens when you use a full frame lens on a DX Cheesy.

But i have a few more question, why does this happens especially on wide lenses or why on this wide lens Cheesy.

Thank you.
Logged
Toshik
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2012, 06:40:17 PM »

Wow, thank you, i think i understand and i also totally agree the marketing strategies of some tech manufacturers (for example i dont like how canon adds so many mega pixels on some cameras that are not sharp at all). When i started photography i knew there were a lot of things to learn but day by day i am amazed of the amount of things that exist and has to be learned and i never realized they exist even if they are in front of me (literally) all the time Cheesy. Optics is one of these things.

I might be wrong but here is what i have understood, in a physical point of view, the lens has, lets say, 1 billion glass atoms, a lens with more atoms is sharper than a lens with less atoms. A FX sensor at will use all the atoms but a DX sensor will use (because its crop is 1.5 times smaller than a FX) only 666666666.(6) atoms so it will be less sharper because less atoms means less lens resolution at any F. If i am right than i wish the camera had a option to be able to move the sensor backwards to be able to use the full sharpness of the lens when you use a full frame lens on a DX Cheesy.

But i have a few more question, why does this happens especially on wide lenses or why on this wide lens Cheesy.

Thank you.
Speaking in general there are high quality ultra-sharp lenses like 14-24mm, 28-70mm f/2.8 and some others which can fully use potential of high mp-count full frame sensors like installed in D800. Other, more versatile lenses such as 24-120mm, 24-85 may be good on full frame but rather low megapixel D700 12mp, but will be limiting factor on D800 with 36mp. Every lens has it's limit on resolution which correlates with sensor limits. In your case, the limiting factor is DX sensor in D7000 which is not able to full realize potential of this lens. And to be sure that the lens itself is not limiting compare for example D7000, D700 and D4 (D800 would be better but it's not tested with this lens) and you will see that D4 with this lens has more that twice as much score (24 vs 11), but score is not everything. If you look on resolution data, you can see that it is higher on camera with more mpx within sensor size of course. For example D7000 - 16mpx DX sensor gives only 44lp/mm, D700 - 12mpx - 46lp/mm, new D4 - 16mpx - 52lp/mm, and rather old but with higher quantity 24 mpx - D3X - 57lp/mm. So i guess the absolute winner in terms of resolution will be D800 - 36mpx sensor, but it's rather interesting to see, how much better can this lens perform on D800 comparing to D3X or D600.
So if we take into account that this lens was developed specifically to be used with full frame sensors, it's not surprising that you have less picture quality on DX camera though it has more mpx than D700 you were comparing with.

P.S:If to speak about DX i will not be surprised if this lens will perform better on Nikon D3200 24mpx sensor)

P.S 2:But sometimes it's difficult to understand DXomark rating. For example if we take Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and compare D700 vs D7000, we will see that all Lens Metric Scores are better for D7000 but still D700 has higher score with this lens. Huh So there are cases when DX sensor obtains better resolution and better picture quality than FF.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 05:17:58 PM by Toshik » Logged
EPurpl3
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2012, 09:41:46 AM »

Speaking in general there are high quality ultra-sharp lenses like 14-24mm, 28-70mm f/2.8 and some others which can fully use potential of high mp-count full frame sensors like installed in D800. Other, more versatile lenses such as 24-120mm, 24-85 may be good on full frame but rather low megapixel D700 12mp, but will be limiting factor on D800 with 36mp. Every lens has it's limit on resolution which correlates with sensor limits. In your case, the limiting factor is DX sensor in D7000 which is not able to full realize potential of this lens. And to be sure that the lens itself is not limiting compare for example D7000, D700 and D4 (D800 would be better but it's not tested with this lens) and you will see that D4 with this lens has more that twice as much score (24 vs 11), but score is not everything. If you look on resolution data, you can see that it is higher on camera with more mpx within sensor size of course. For example D7000 - 16mpx DX sensor gives only 44lp/mm, D700 - 12mpx - 46lp/mm, new D4 - 16mpx - 52lp/mm, and rather old but with higher quantity 24 mpx - D3X - 57lp/mm. So i guess the absolute winner in terms of resolution will be D800 - 36mpx sensor, but it's rather interesting to see, how much better can this lens perform on D800 comparing to D3X or D600.
So if we take into account that this lens was developed specifically to be used with full frame sensors, it's not surprising that you have less picture quality on DX camera though it has more mpx than D700 you were comparing with.

P.S:If to speak about DX i will not be surprised if this lens will perform better on Nikon D3200 24mpx sensor)

P.S 2:But sometimes it's difficult to understand DXomark rating. For example if we take Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and compare D700 vs D7000, we will see that all Lens Metric Scores are better for D7000 but still D700 has higher score with this lens. Huh So there are cases when DX sensor obtains better resolution and better picture quality than FF.

Thanks, this is really serious stuff, you cant find this kind of thread anywhere on the internet Cheesy. I have learned a lot from this thread and i am happy i took part of this. Now i know i dont have any reason to be disappointed by this lens, i have to be disappointed by the laws of the universe regarding optics Smiley.

At least on a DX sensor the lens has less distortion and vignetting, after all, i bought this FF lens because i want to start using a full frame camera eventually so i am not sorry i bought this lens, is a great lens, feels great and is my 2nd sharpest lens between f/5.6 and f/8 (my sharpest is Sigma 50mm f/1.4) and is much better than my old wide lens, Sigma 10-20 f3.5.

Now i see that Samyang lenses according to DXO are good lenses and really cheap, i wonder who will buy them (the whole company Cheesy )
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 11:05:41 AM by EPurpl3 » Logged
Toshik
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2012, 02:05:54 PM »

At least on a DX sensor the lens has less distortion and vignetting, after all, i bought this FF lens because i want to start using a full frame camera eventually so i am not sorry i bought this lens, is a great lens, feels great and is my 2nd sharpest lens between f/5.6 and f/8 (my sharpest is Sigma 50mm f/1.4) and is much better than my old wide lens, Sigma 10-20 f3.5.

Now i see that Samyang lenses according to DXO are good lenses and really cheap, i wonder who will buy them (the whole company Cheesy )
16-35 in use with DX sensor gets you 24-52,5mm of focal length, so it can't be considered as ultra-wide angle lens no more, like it is on FF( So if you want ultra-wide angle and good resolution you should look for another lens, maybe Nikon 12-24mm f/4 or Tokina AT-X 11-16 or Tokina AT-X 12-24.
Logged
EPurpl3
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2012, 04:25:09 PM »

At least on a DX sensor the lens has less distortion and vignetting, after all, i bought this FF lens because i want to start using a full frame camera eventually so i am not sorry i bought this lens, is a great lens, feels great and is my 2nd sharpest lens between f/5.6 and f/8 (my sharpest is Sigma 50mm f/1.4) and is much better than my old wide lens, Sigma 10-20 f3.5.

Now i see that Samyang lenses according to DXO are good lenses and really cheap, i wonder who will buy them (the whole company Cheesy )
16-35 in use with DX sensor gets you 24-52,5mm of focal length, so it can't be considered as ultra-wide angle lens no more, like it is on FF( So if you want ultra-wide angle and good resolution you should look for another lens, maybe Nikon 12-24mm f/4 or Tokina AT-X 11-16 or Tokina AT-X 12-24.

Yea, thanks for the info but i never said i needed a ultra-wide lens, i never said i want to change that lens and i never said i needed any opinion about any focal length or any other lens but thanks any way. Of course i took into consideration all the known details like focal length or aperture size, etc and i have chosen this, the only problem is that is not as sharp as i expected. I also had a Sigma 10-20 f3.5 and that was way too wide on a DX camera (not to mention the back focus problem on my new camera) so this is perfect because i dont just want to use it for landscapes photography but also for general use with low bokeh (thats why i love the VR2 and i dont care if is f/4 because most of my lenses are f/1.4 or f/1.8 but none of this have VR2).

Any way, thanks
Logged
Toshik
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2012, 05:25:33 AM »

not to mention the back focus problem on my new camera
Doesn't D7000 have Auto Focus Fine Tune options?
Logged
EPurpl3
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2012, 02:40:10 PM »

not to mention the back focus problem on my new camera
Doesn't D7000 have Auto Focus Fine Tune options?

Well, it also has manual focus Cheesy. The awkward thing about that lens was that when i used a flash i had good focus, when i didnt i had back focus. Is strange, i know, but is true. I hate to disable the fine tune everytime i used a flash or the pop-up flash and i use it a lot. Also, the guys from the shop from where i bought the lens were unable to fix the back focus (i had a warranty) and i had to sell it. Any way, i never bought anything from those guys ever again.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 02:43:13 PM by EPurpl3 » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: